YouTube Creators Will Receive Money Earned During Content ID Disputes After New Update

[Sonicron]

Pfft. A band-aid, nothing more. There's nothing here about the 'strike' system, and THAT's the one that needs changing above all. Youtube desperately needs to unfuck itself insofar as users who hand out false copyright takedown notices (such as censorship-happy hack developers, Nintendo, Konami etc) have to feel some sort of punishment for that behaviour.

 

[ffronw]

YouTube will also says they want Content ID to be used properly

This is a typo I sometimes make when writing. Look, guys, I know it's impossible to write anything without making typos, but that's what EDITORS are for. That's what PROOFREADING is for. You aren't writing novels, you're writing articles that tend to be less than 100 words, but it seems like every other article I read has at least one typo like this. It comes across as unprofessional and surely you have the ability to avoid this far more often than you do.

Keep pointing them out. I read every article a couple of times, but sometimes my brain just ignores the typos anyway.

Thanks for finding it.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

Good but the progress must be followed up. There's still a lot of abuse on the site.

 

[Fox12]

Well, it's a start...

Now all we need is negative strikes for false claims and we're golden youtube.
What I would pay to see a big company like Nintendo or Sega get a strike against their channel right before a big event and be completely hamstrung because a false claim they submitted got overturned.

It won't work for someone as big as Nintendo, but it may stop someone like The Fine Bros. At the end of the day, the issues are still settled in the court, and youtube can't afford to fight the entire entertainment industry, even if their in the right.

 

[Timedraven 117]

Well, it's a start...

Now all we need is negative strikes for false claims and we're golden youtube.
What I would pay to see a big company like Nintendo or Sega get a strike against their channel right before a big event and be completely hamstrung because a false claim they submitted got overturned.

It won't work for someone as big as Nintendo, but it may stop someone like The Fine Bros. At the end of the day, the issues are still settled in the court, and youtube can't afford to fight the entire entertainment industry, even if their in the right.

Actually, if they are in the right, then the courts will over turn the entertainment industries cases as frivolous. What are those companies going to do? FORCE Youtube to take down stuff? Stop uploading stuff on Youtube? Yeah right, Youtube has so much market share that the relationship is very equal. Keep in mind they aren't fighting Youtube, they're fighting Google, the people who have one of the most well used search engines on the planet. Ten lines of code and that company's links are now at the bottom of the list.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Giving strikes to false claimants, like big developers won't happen. YouTubes needs the sliver of their ad revenue just as much as the developer needs YouTube to push it's product. Eliminating the three strike system would be enough, and YouTube would (on a case by case basis) manually ban repeat offenders who are found to be in true violation.

 

[Strazdas]

Youtube actually domes something positive? i should watch out for flying pigs today.

Though its still very far from being a good system. And i can still singlehandedly take down entire channels by making false claims if i wanted to, because youtube does not check any of the stuff until an appeal is made. And i can keep ALL of your videos perpetually in copyright claim hell by repeated claims that will get released 30 days later. I may not be able to make money of it now but i can still ruin channels this way. and i shouldnt be able to.

 

[Revolutionary]

Still doesn't adress the fact that these claims can be made just to mess with people, and doesn't at all adress false DMCA claims but it's a good first step.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Funny enough the latest Jimquisition is on just this topic. Jim found that by cherry picking multiple snippets of content he knew for a fact would be flagged by content ID by multiple claimants, he can ensure none of them can monetise his content since if there are multiple claims apparently none of them can control it.

This is a small but positive step, but I don't think it's enough. The system is so utterly absurd as it stands, by treating everyone as guilty until proven innocent.

 

[Balimaar]

On a semi-related topic:

One of my videos on YouTube was flagged for content when I first uploaded it. It was something much like the Hitler rant videos i.e. what is actually being said and the subtitles displayed are nowhere near exact and is being used to parody an event/game etc.

I translated someone elses subtitled video into English. This video contained footage/sound from LOTR where Gandalf rides to meet Saruman. The subtitles the original uploader put on the video was parodying an event in this game.

I found a russian dub of this scene and put up a translation of the subtitles from the original uploader. Not monetised or anything.

Warner (and yes the actual people) have claimed it and have set it so money goes to them (good luck with that since I have made the video private since that claim came in).

So what we have here is a video containing footage and audio from a movie, with 'creative' subtitles parodying a third party's product.

I dont know really where I stand here...

 

[Ukomba]

A good start, but they also need to do a percentage distribution. If a copyrighted song plays for 20 seconds in a 5 minute video, that shouldn't result in 100% of the revenue going to the copyright holder, but they do deserve some.

 

[Kahani]

YouTube said of the system now, "Currently videos that are claimed and disputed don't earn revenue for anyone

Well that's obviously not true - they still earn revenue for YouTube. Which is, of course, why they didn't bother doing anything about it before.

 

[yamy]

This is a step in the right direction, but I think there are still a few potential problems that leave open the possibility of abuse by copyright claimants.

The biggest problem is that it doesn't cost anything to issue copyright claims , and that no matter the validity of the claim it takes loads of time for the dispute to settle. So now we will hopefully get less copyright trolls that leaches off content creators, but this doesn't resolve the problem of copyright holders (often using crappy software) issuing mass/automatic claims and stopping content creators from getting any money.

So better, but still not great. I think to truly protect the rights of the legitimate content creator, there needs to be a penalty in place to stop abuser of the claims system, not just holding the money until the dispute is settled.

 

[Vanilla ISIS]

Youtube is doing something right?
What are the odds?

 

[sXeth]

And lo and behold Jim just found a loophole around monetization on his videos.

Oh thats a great one. Straight up Hellblazer method on it.

 

[RaikuFA]

That's certainly good news, glad to hear that YouTube is finally stepping up to the plate like it should have been doing all along.

In other news: Doug Walker's "Where's The Fair Use?" campaign is apparently gaining a lot of traction.

Posted 2 hours ago (as of writing):

Looks like those guys are pretty desperate to bully critics around.

 

[Infernal Lawyer]

This is technically good, but I'm not going to congratulate Youtube for doing something that should have been common fucking sense.

Also, where are those guys adamantly telling everyone that such a thing was impossible because "Youtube HAS to immediately hand all the cash to the claimant or they're legally endorsing copyright infringement"? Not going to name names (mostly because I can't be arsed looking it up), but I have a bone to pick with them...

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

This is technically good, but I'm not going to congratulate Youtube for doing something that should have been common fucking sense.

Also, where are those guys adamantly telling everyone that such a thing was impossible because "Youtube HAS to immediately hand all the cash to the claimant or they're legally endorsing copyright infringement"? Not going to name names (mostly because I can't be arsed looking it up), but I have a bone to pick with them...

I was wondering about them too. I kind of thought what they said back then sounded wrong, but what do I know. I really want to see how media companies react to this change because it means they will have to actually challenge videos more often now.